Pope Benedict Affirms Cardinal Castrillón Interviews:
SSPX within the Church

Brian Mershon

REMNANT COLUMNIST, South Carolina

A Remnant Exclusive Interview

Ecône,
Switzerland—Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society
of St. Pius X (SSPX), said at least three of the four SSPX bishops
were satisfied with the contents of the motu proprio,
confirming that the Traditional Roman rite of Holy Mass
(extraordinary form of the Roman rite) has never been abrogated. By
interview time, he had not spoken to the fourth bishop, but said he
expected that bishop to also be pleased with the document. “The
Priestly Society of Saint Pius X extends its deep gratitude to the
Sovereign Pontiff for this great spiritual benefit,” read a July 7,
2007 news release from the SSPX. The SSPX also released a more
detailed letter to its Catholic lay faithful.[1]

Bishop Fellay said
the document gave priests much more freedom to offer the Traditional
rite “than any expectation” he had in advance. He also said that
that the Holy See “consider(s) [the lifting of the decrees] of
excommunication less difficult than the motu proprio.” This
was communicated to Bishop Fellay in the accompanying letter of the
motu proprio he received from Darío Cardinal Castrillón,
Prefect of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Cardinal
Castrillón said in an interview with Il Giornale, “With
this motu proprio, the door is widely opened for a return of
the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion.”

The document gives
freedom to all Latin-rite priests to choose either missal in
offering their daily Mass. While there are some restrictions on the
celebration of the Mass publicly at a regular time, the Pope wrote
that in parishes where there is a stable group of faithful desiring
the Mass regularly, “the pastor should willingly accept their
requests.” For Masses “without the people,” such Masses may be
attended by the faithful who request to be admitted.

This document is
the fulfillment of the first of the three preconditions of the SSPX
before coming to a full canonical regularization with the Holy See.
The second request is for the Holy See to rescind the decrees of
excommunication, similar to the removal of excommunications for the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople by Pope Paul VI in 1965.

What seems to be at issue is the newer, post-Conciliar
ecclesiology as the Church as “sacrament,” which defines Christians
as having “degrees of unity” of communion with the Church instead of
the more juridical understanding of “membership” in the Church and a
Christian being “inside” or “outside” the Church. Bishop Fellay
affirmed that the SSPX holds the pre-Conciliar theology.

The irony is that many Catholic bishops, priests and
faithful who hold almost exclusively the sacramental ecclesiology
are often those to claim the SSPX is “outside” the Church, while at
the same time calling Protestants “separated brethren” and refusing
to use the terms “schismatic” or “heretic” to those who are further
away from the body, heart and soul of the Church. In other words,
they will often engage in ecumenical events and worship services
with those who don’t share the same Faith and sacraments and no
ordained priesthood, but will be the first to warn Catholics against
attending Mass at an SSPX chapel with other Catholics.

Q: Your Excellency. What is your
personal reaction to the long-awaited and much anticipated motu
proprio Summorum Pontificum? What is the general reaction you
have heard from other Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) bishops and
priests?

A: Since I
have just returned from a trip, I haven’t heard much of anything. So
I don’t have many reactions [from priests] yet.

However, I know
that at least three of the four bishops are satisfied with the
motu proprio. The other probably also, but I don’t know because
I haven’t gotten his impression yet.

I would insist on
two things. The first is the motu proprio itself. It is very
clear that the motu proprio does open—much more than any
expectation—the celebration of the Tridentine Mass and all of the
previous liturgies. That is, not only the Mass, but the Breviary and
the Rituale.

I think we have to
salute and to greet this date and this motu proprio as a very
significant historical event in the history of the Church and in
post-Vatican II history. This has to be noted. I think it is very
important.

Nevertheless, this
does not mean it is perfect—especially when we link the motu
proprio with the letter [to the bishops]. The letter is, if I
may say it, the usual Vatican language. It is very unfortunate.

There are some
interesting things in this letter like the quote where the Pope says
the reason for his action is for an internal reconciliation within
the Church; which means that we are not outside of the Church. That
is very interesting.

But nevertheless,
this letter has to be understood as a political letter which most
surely does represent his personal thinking. Nevertheless, it is
more than unfortunate in many ways, especially where he insists upon
the necessity to recognize the value and the holiness of the New
Mass. He plays both sides against each other. And the modern bishops
that are progressive—they will jump on that point immediately trying
to dismantle the motu proprio.

Q: With this first precondition
met for the good of the Church overall—the freeing of the
Traditional Mass—what is your outlook on the possible lifting of the
decrees of excommunication against the SSPX bishops? Have you had
any correspondence with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
since January 2007?

A:I have had no conversations, no discussions and no
relations. That is the first point.

The second point
on the Roman side: as far as I know, they consider the [lifting of
the decrees] of excommunication less difficult than the motu
proprio. That’s the only answer I can give you.

Q: Your Excellency. This is quite surprising. What indication do
you have from the Holy See that this is the case?

A:It is the word of Cardinal Castrillón [in the letter]
when he sent me the motu proprio [the week before Summorum
Pontificum was issued]. That is the first contact of the
Cardinal with me since the 15th of November 2005.

Q: Do you believe the Holy See
might possibly be awaiting a private letter or move by you on behalf
of the SSPX requesting the lifting of the decrees of excommunication
before they consider possible action?

A: I have
no idea (chuckling). I don’t care about public or not public.
Certainly, after this [freeing of the extraordinary Roman rite],
there will certainly be an expectation of some contacts—definitely.
But our line is very clear, so I don’t think there is much to expect
new or surprising.

Q: Your Excellency, just to
clarify: Based upon the letter you received last week from Cardinal Castrillón along with the motu proprio, was there any
indication from the good Cardinal that he expected any follow-up
action on the part of the Society?

A: No. It
was just a very broad expectation that this would open the way to
reconciliation, which can be understood in many ways.

The secular media is reacting
like two nuclear bombs have gone off around the world within three
days with the freeing of the Traditional Mass on Saturday, July 7,
and today with the reaffirmation on the Catholic Church being the
one, true Church, and the defects in the Orthodox Churches and
Protestant ecclesial communities. This document seems to be geared
specifically toward attempting to clarify some theological concerns
with certain passages of the Second Vatican Council’s key documents.
What is your initial reaction?

A:My reaction? In the declaration about the motu
proprio, we insisted in saying that the confused excerpts of
places in the letter show that the need to enter into theological
discussions was reinforced very, very strongly by this document
which is telling us that a circle is a quadrangle.

You have a perfect illustration of what we have said
for 6 years. That is that Rome is continuing in a confusing way
because they don’t seem to give much care to contradiction and
non-contradiction.

This document seems to be a clarification of nothing
but assuring once again that “Yes” means “No.”

Q: Your Excellency. Can you give us an example?

A:Sure.One example is precisely
the question about subsistit. [The question is] “Why use the
expression “subsistit in” and not “est”? You read the
answer and you conclude nothing.

They say it is “est”and that there is an
identity with the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church; and
there is no change of doctrine. And then the next phrase is
precisely a change in doctrine. So… It is a contradiction.

In his sermon in Ecône, Bishop Williamson said that
in Rome they say something like two plus two makes four, but maybe
it also makes five. And here you have a perfect illustration of
that.

The only positive thing [in the document] is about
the Protestants which are now barred from the title of Church.
Great! [Ed. Note: This doctrine on Protestant “ecclesial
communities” has already been outlined previously by Dominus
Jesus and other authoritative Church doctrinal clarifications.]

Besides that, it is a confirmation of what we say.
This text tries to tell us that there is no contradiction between
the doctrine of the Church of the past and of Vatican II. And we
insist by saying that Vatican II is in disharmony—is in
contradiction—is even teaching error opposed to the traditional
teaching, especially on ecumenism. And here [in this new document on
ecclesiology] you have both sides put together; that is, the past
and Vatican II.

Q:
Two traditionalist priestly societies—most recently with the Institute of the Good Shepherd in
France—and the apostolic administration of the priests of St. John
Marie Vianney led by Bishop Fernando Rifan,
have reconciled with the Holy See. The Holy See has allowed these
traditionalist groups to continue to hold fast to the expressions of
the Catholic Faith used prior to Vatican II, while accepting that
Vatican II was a real and valid Ecumenical Council, while allowing
constructive theological study on possible ambiguities in the
documents. What keeps the SSPX from doing
the same?

A: This
text is a confirmation of all of our reproaches against the
ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II [documents]. It is
a superb example of ambiguity and maybe it has never gone so far by
trying to put together what cannot be put together; by pretending
that there is no position which is a clear position.

So the question of the necessity of having doctrinal
discussions prior to coming to any sort of practical agreement is
very well documented in this new document [as an example]. It is a
beautiful expression of the necessity, of the need and the
importance of dealing with these matters before going any further.

Q: Archbishop Lefebvre signed all
16 documents of the Second Vatican Council. After the Council, he
was very critical of the documents and even sent a dubia to
the Holy See requesting clarification on religious liberty. However,
Archbishop Lefebvre never rejected all the documents of the Second
Vatican Council in totality.

A:And we don’t do so either. It is not a
matter of rejecting or accepting.

The questions are, “Are these documents good? Are
these documents nurturing the Faith? Are they good for the survival
of the Church or not?”

And the more we go on, the more we see the
ambiguities in the Council—which at a certain time seemed to be
reconcilable to be correctly interpreted with Tradition, not
including the very obvious errors—the further we go on, and the more
we see that this is an impossible job.

Q: Your Excellency. Do you believe the destruction in the Church
has been caused by not following the letter of the documents or by
possible errors or ambiguities in the documents themselves?

A:I would say that not all of the documents, but
most of them, are full of ambiguities. The more we study them, the
more we see that according to the letter, you have these
ambiguities.

Ambiguities mean that you have at least two ways to
understand them or to interpret them. This is terribly damaging for
a document that is supposed to be from the highest solemnity in the
Church—a document which comes from an Ecumenical Council. It is a
great tragedy.

These ambiguities, I must say, you find them almost
everywhere. In addition to these three major errors of ecumenism,
religious liberty and collegiality, you have all these ambiguities
everywhere.

It is not in the Catholic spirit. It is this modern,
progressive spirit which has partly been condemned by Pope Benedict
XVI, but which also basically and fundamentally has been approved by
him. We’re going around in circles there.

Q:
Cardinal Castrillón’s Sunday, July 8, Il Giornale interview spoke
specifically about the SSPX, saying the following: “With this
motu proprio, the door is widely opened [si spalanca la porta]
for a return of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion.
If, after this act, the return does not take place, I truly will not
be able to comprehend. I wish to clarify, though, that the papal
document has not been made for the Lefebvrists, but because the Pope
is convinced of the need to underline that there is a continuity in
the Tradition, and that in the Church one does not move forward by
way of fractures. The ancient Mass has never been abolished nor
forbidden.”[2] What is your reaction?

A:
Certainly, this motu proprio is a step in our direction. It
is most probably the will of Rome to answer to our first
precondition. It is nice.

Is it enough to say, “We can now just go ahead?”
Well, we can just look at this text published today [on the nature
of the Church from the CDF] and you have the answer.

Look. It is a good step forward, but that does not
mean that everything is solved. Absolutely not.

Q:
In numerous public interviews over the past 2 years with both the
secular and Catholic media, Cardinal Castrillón continues to repeat
that the SSPX is not in formal schism,
but that has unfortunately often fallen upon deaf ears with many
Catholics within the Church. What do you think motivates this
new attitude?

A: It shows
that Rome wants to end this apparent split in the Church. It is a
thorn in their side because on the one side, they want to have
unity.

They want to work all this ecumenism toward unity,
but there is an apparent division within at the closest level. So
how can you pretend to make unity with people who are outside when
you are not capable of doing it with those who are inside?

It’s a contradiction. And so as they try to do this
ecumenism; it is a duty for them to stop this interior division. Now
the problem is that the means they use are much too superficial.
It’s fine if they want to use these means, but it will not end the
cause of it [the division].

Q: Your Excellency. What do you mean by “superficial”?

A: If
you say, “Let’s sign a paper [a practical agreement],” that is
superficial. Merely signing a paper is superficial.

If you say, “Let’s agree on a formula that is
acceptable to both parties, but both continue to think their own
ways, that is superficial.”

The real thing is when you agree on truth. That is
not superficial.

Q: Some within the Church
continue to state the SSPX is in schism; how do you answer to the
following question?
When was the last time 6,000 schismatics prayed in Rome during the
Year of the Jubilee in 2000? When was the last time schismatics sent
a spiritual bouquet of 2.5 million rosaries
to the Holy Father?

A: And
we have an even better argument in the [Pope’s] letter that
accompanies the motu proprio on the Mass where the Holy
Father says it is an internal matter within the Catholic Church—in
the Church.[3]

It clearly states that it is not about a schism. It
is about an interior dispute which requires an interior
reconciliation within the Church.

So we have it from the word of the boss. Our Pope
says it is not a schism.

Q:
Many Catholics who are enamored with solely using the newer ecclesiology of “partial” and
“full” communion (and call Protestants our “separated brethren” and
would never dare call them “schismatics” or “heretics”) are the same
people who are the first to continue to call the SSPX “schismatics”
and claim they are outside the Church.[4]
But they use the pre-Conciliar
juridical ecclesiology of “outside” and “inside” the Church while
describing the SSPX, thus showing a notable inconsistency. Is there
an irony here? Your thoughts on this, Your Excellency?

A:
Exactly. For us, we still use the old weapons.

Q: In the CDF document clarifying
the nature of the Church, in answer to a question about the use of
the proper use of the term “Church” for the Eastern Orthodox, using
the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism as a reference,[5]
the following answer is provided: “It is through the celebration of
the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church
of God is built up and grows in stature.”

Taking into account how
explicitly positive and encouraging this text is for the celebration
of the Eucharist (and by extension, the other sacraments) for the
Eastern Church, which is not in full communion with the Holy See,
nor believes all the dogma or morals of the Catholic Faith, isn’t it
ironic that so many Catholic bishops, priests and laymen will not
extend this same positive and charitable attitude to “the
celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord” when offered by priests
who are within the Church and believe all its Faith and morals?
Can you imagine the majority of Catholics dutifully adhering to the
following? “It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the
Lord in each of these SSPX chapels that the Church of God is
built up and grows in stature.” Is this but another irony?

A: Sure.
You could say this is an ad hominem argument. I want to state
that very precisely. We could very easily say that in the Society,
we have the celebration of the Eucharist. We have apostolic
succession. So definitely, according to that statement, we
contribute to the edification and glorification of God. Definitely.

We are in the Catholic Church—period. We have never
pretended to be an independent body [in other words, a separate
“Church” in the sense used with the Eastern Orthodox].

Q: Do you have any closing remarks?

A: I
think first of all, all of these documents should never be read just
as an absolute. They have to be put in their context. The current
context is that we still have a tragedy and a tremendous crisis in
the Church.

And that means that even with something that tends
toward the good that will definitely be for the good of the
Church—like the document on the Mass—we cannot expect that suddenly
things will be perfect. I don’t want to give any illusions.

So as we greet this courageous act of the Pope at
this time, and we greet this great act. That’s the first step.
At the same time, that does not mean it is the end of the fight or
the crisis. What is very important is to see how this document will
be applied in reality. Now that it has been said that the Mass
has never been abrogated and that every priest has the right to say
it; so, will they be able to? Practically speaking, who will care
about granting this freedom and assuring this freedom of celebrating
the Tridentine Mass? That will be very interesting. How will the
bishops react?

I think this is very important for the future. If I
may say here, this kind of fight is so overwhelming; the crusade of
rosaries which we started and seems to bring some good fruits, has
to be continued.

The Motu Proprio Summorum
Pontificum of July 7, 2007 re-establishes the Tridentine
Mass in its legal right. In the text it is clearly
acknowledged that it was never abrogated. And so fidelity to
this Mass – for the sake of which so many priests and lay
people have been persecuted, or even severely punished, for
almost forty years – this fidelity was never disobedience.
Today it is only right and just to thank Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre for having maintained us in this fidelity to the
Mass of all times in the name of true obedience, and against
all the abuses of power. Also there is no doubt that this
recognition of the right of the traditional Mass is the
fruit of the vast number of rosaries offered up to Our Lady
during our Rosary Crusade last October; let us not forget
now to express to her our gratitude.

Beyond the re-establishment
of the Mass of Saint Pius V in its legitimate right, it is
important to study the concrete measures issued by the Motu
Proprio and the justification given by Benedict XVI in the
letter which accompanies the text:

- By right,
the practical measures taken by the pope must enable the
traditional liturgy – not only the Mass, but also the
sacraments – to be celebrated normally. This is an immense
spiritual benefit for the whole Church, for the priests and
faithful who were hitherto paralyzed by the unjust authority
of the bishops. However, in the coming months it remains to
be seen how these measures will be applied in fact by
the bishops and parish priests. For this reason, we will
continue to pray for the pope so that he may remain firm
following this courageous act.

- The letter
accompanying the Motu Proprio gives the pope’s reasons. The
affirmation of the existence of one single rite under two
forms – the ordinary and the extraordinary forms – of equal
right, and especially the rejection of the exclusive
celebration of the traditional liturgy, may, it is true, be
interpreted as the expression of a political desire not to
confront the Bishops’ Conferences which are openly opposed
to any liberalization of the Tridentine Mass. But we may
also see in this an expression of the "reform of the reform"
desired by the pope himself, and in which, as he himself
writes in this letter, the Mass of Saint Pius V and that of
Paul VI would mutually enrich one another.

In any event, there is in
Benedict XVI the clear desire to re-affirm the continuity of
Vatican II and the Mass which issued from it, with the
bimillenial Tradition. This denial of a rupture caused by
the last council – already shown in his address to the Curia
on December 22, 2005 – shows that what is at stake in the
debate between Rome and the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X
is essentially doctrinal. For this reason, the undeniable
step forward made by the Motu Proprio in the liturgical
domain must be followed – after the withdrawal of the decree
of excommunication – by theological discussions.

The reference to Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Society of Saint Pius X made in the accompanying letter, as
well as the acknowledgment of the testimony given by the
young generations which are taking up the torch of
Tradition, clearly show that our constancy to defend the
lex orandi has been taken into account. With God’s help,
we must continue the combat for the lex credendi, the
combat for the faith, with the same firmness.

“I now come to
the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue
this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of
coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the
Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which
in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ,
one continually has the impression that, at critical moments
when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the
Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and
unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of
the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that
these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the
past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort
to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in
that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in
the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes:
“Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide.
You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your
own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2
Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another
context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too,
precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our
hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself
allows.”

Fr. Jay Scott
Newman, JCL, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church in
Greenville, S.C., asked the following question in this
"Lecture Addressed to the Theological Students Association
of The Catholic University of America," in Washington, D.C.,
in 2001. While it is clear that Fr. Newman did not have in
mind the Society of St. Pius X situation when he authored
this lecture, I believe its contents are instructive.

We must remember, that when Edward Cardinal Cassidy, the
former prefect for Ecumenism, was questioned as to why
theological dialogue did not take place regularly with the
Society of St. Pius X if they were indeed in schism,
Cardinal Cassidy replied that the situation was an "internal
matter" of the Catholic Church. Fr. Newman opined:

"Expanding on the precept of St. Augustine that unless he
persevere in charity, a Catholic can remain bound to the
Church in body but not in heart, I wonder if it is not now
possible to describe circumstances in which some
non-Catholic Christians have a greater degree of fullness of
communion with the one Church of Christ than do some
Catholic Christians because of their stubborn refusal to
believe doctrines of the faith which must be definitively
held.

"I suspect that such a prospect is a logical consequence of
the substantial newness of ecclesiology in Vatican II,
namely, that one is not either in or out of the Church, but
rather that all the baptized are joined in real communion
with the Church by some degree of fullness. In other words,
it is now clear that the road of communion with the Catholic
Church by degrees of fullness is a two-way street."

Pope Benedict
XVI has often written about the
reforms of the sacred liturgy which began at the Second
Vatican Council, and since his election to the papacy, there
has been speculation that the new pope either would begin to
make changes to our present liturgy or would make it easier
for priests to use the old liturgy. In recent weeks there
have been reports that the pope is preparing to publish a
document about the Tridentine Mass, and when or if that
document should ever be published, I will take great care to
explain what it means for the liturgical life of the Church.
For now, however, I write to warn you about a group of
renegade bishops and priests who are leading people out of
full communion with the Catholic Church in the name of the
old liturgy.

In 1970, a French bishop
named Marcel Lefebvre formed the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)
as a group of priests dedicated to preserving the form of
the Mass codified by the Council of Trent, and for five
years, the SSPX functioned within
the Catholic Church. In 1975, however, the Society lost its
canonical standing, and in 1976 Marcel Lefebvre was
suspended from all priestly faculties. For twelve years,
authorities in Rome worked with Lefebvre to prevent a
permanent rupture, but in 1988—against the specific
instructions of Pope John Paul II—Marcel Lefebvre
consecrated four bishops for the SSPX,
and by that act both Lefebvre and all four new bishops were
excommunicated. This was an act of schism, a grave offense
against the unity of the Catholic Church, and from that day
in 1988, the bishops and priests of
the SSPX have been in a state of
schism and have incurred the penalty of excommunication.
Moreover, the Holy See has made it clear many times over
that it is morally illicit for any Catholic to attend Mass
celebrated by a priest of the SSPX
or to receive any sacrament from one of these priests.

If the anticipated papal
document is published, there will be considerable attention
given in the media to the Tridentine Mass and to the
Catholics who prefer to pray according to the Missal of
1962. And it is possible even now to participate lawfully in
this Mass when it is celebrated with proper permission, as
is done here in Greenville (sic: Taylors, SC) on the first
Sunday of each month at Prince of Peace Church. There are
even entire communities of priests within the Church which
are dedicated to preserving the old Mass, and it is lawful
to receive the sacraments from those priests. What is
never lawful, though, is for Catholics to attend a Mass
celebrated by a priest of the SSPX
or to receive any sacraments from priests of the Society.
The SSPX maintains chapels in Mt.
Holly, NC and in Atlanta, and you may have heard of
Catholics attending Mass in these places while offering a
variety of bogus justifications for this disobedience. As
your pastor, I must warn you that it is gravely immoral to
participate in any way in these illicit and schismatic acts
of worship, and I urge you in the Name of God not to do so
or to encourage others to do so, even by your silence.
Our constant goal must be to live and die in full communion
with the Lord Jesus and His Holy Church, and that cannot be
accomplished by acts of schism.